Nazi Victims Ask EU to Probe Vatican on Looted Assets

Holocaust survivors from the former Yugoslavia accused the Vatican of helping Nazi allies launder their stolen valuables and have asked the European Commission to investigate their claims.

“We are requesting the commission open an inquiry into allegations of money laundering of Holocaust victim assets by financial organs associated with or which are agencies of the Vatican City State,”

Jonathan Levy, a Washington-based attorney for the survivors and their heirs, wrote in a letter dated Oct. 20 to Olli Rehn, the European Union’s economic and monetary affairs commissioner. Levy provided the letter to Bloomberg.
The request follows a decade-long lawsuit in U.S. courts on behalf of Holocaust survivors and their heirs from the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. That case, basing its claims on a U.S. State Department report on the fate of Nazi plunder, alleged that the Vatican Bank laundered assets stolen from thousands of Jews, gypsies and Serbs killed or captured by the Ustasha, the Nazi-backed regime of wartime Croatia. The Vatican repeatedly denied the charges and the findings of the 1998 U.S. report.

Amadeu Altafaj, Rehn’s spokesman, said in Brussels today that the commission had received Levy’s letter and contacted Vatican authorities about it. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi declined to comment on Levy’s request to the commission.

Vatican Immunity

The U.S. case, which sought as much as $2 billion in restitution, was dismissed last December by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco on grounds that the Vatican Bank enjoyed immunity under the 1976 Foreign Service Immunities Act, which may prevent foreign governments from facing lawsuits in the U.S.
The commission should have the authority to probe the Institute for Religious Works, or IOR, as the Vatican Bank is called, according to Levy’s letter. It cites a monetary accord signed on Dec. 17 of last year. Under the agreement the Vatican, which uses the euro and issues euro coins, pledged to implement EU laws against money laundering, counterfeiting and fraud.

Rome prosecutors have also sought to show that the Vatican bank is covered under European law. Last month they seized 23 million euros ($32 million) from an Italian account registered to the IOR as they opened a probe into alleged violations of money-laundering laws by the Vatican Bank.

“We looked at all the places where the Vatican may have surrendered sovereignty,” Levy said in a telephone interview. “The only place we could find was with the euro, where they placed themselves under the jurisdiction of either the European Central Bank or the European Commission.”


Swiss Payout

Levy initially contacted the legal office of the Frankfurt- based ECB and was told to take the claim to the commission, he said. An ECB spokeswoman confirmed that after being contacted by Levy, the central bank advised him to go directly to the EU’s executive arm.

The U.S. lawsuit was first filed in 1999, one year after an official Swiss commission concluded that Switzerland received three times more gold taken from Nazi victims than previously estimated by the U.S. government. The same year, UBS AG and Credit Suisse AG, the biggest Swiss banks, agreed to pay $1.25 billion in compensation to Holocaust survivors and their heirs.

In his letter, Levy said “gold and other valuables” stolen in the “genocidal” murder of 500,000 Serbs, Jews and gypsies “were deposited at the Vatican in 1946,” according to “contemporaneous documents authored by Allied investigators” and “the sworn testimony of former U.S. Special Agent William Gowen.” He interviewed and investigated the Ustasha involved in transferring the loot while stationed in Rome after the war.

Euro Coins


Under its agreement with the commission, Vatican City State, a sovereign nation outside the EU, may issue a maximum of 2.3 million euros in coins in 2010 through the Italian mint, not including a further variable amount. The Vatican also pledged to implement EU legislation against money laundering by year-end.
Rehn said the Vatican has submitted its first draft laws “on the prevention of money laundering and the fight against fraud and counterfeiting” and the commission is analyzing them, according to his reply to a question from a member of the European Parliament, posted on its website on Sept. 9.

Lombardi on Oct. 23 declined to say whether the Vatican intends to meet the Dec. 31 deadline for implementing the EU legislation.

Vatican body asks UN to 'end Israeli occupation'

Vatican body asks UN to 'end Israeli occupation'

In final statement of two-week conference, bishops' synod urges international community to take 'necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arab territories'

Reuters Published: 10.23.10, 14:00 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3973590,00.html


Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify new "settlements" in Jerusalem or territorial claims, a Vatican synod on the Middle East said on Saturday.

In its concluding message after two weeks of meetings, the synod of bishops from the Middle East also said it hoped a two-state solution for peace between Israel and the Palestinians
could be lifted from dream to reality and called for peaceful conditions that would stop a Christian exodus from the region.

"We have meditated on the situation of the holy city of Jerusalem. We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its demographic balance," the message said.

US-brokered peace talks have stalled since Israel rejected appeals to extend a temporary moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank that expired last month.

Since the freeze expired, Israel has announced plans to build another 238 homes in two east Jerusalem neighborhoods, drawing the condemnation of Palestinians and world leaders.

In a separate part of the document -- a section on cooperation with Jews -- the synod fathers also took issue with Jews who use the Bible to justify settlements in the West Bank, which Israel captured in 1967.

"Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable," the document said.

Many Jewish settlers and right-wing Israelis claim a biblical birthright to the West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria and regard as a part of historical, ancient Israel given to the Jews by God.

Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said:

"We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.

"The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians," he added. "The justification of Israel's occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures."

The synod's concluding message repeated a Vatican call for Jerusalem to have a special status "which respects its particular character" as a city sacred to the three great monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jerusalem remains a key issue of dispute. Palestinians want east Jerusalem for capital of a future state. Israel has annexed the area, a move never recognized internationally, and has declared Jerusalem to be its "united and eternal" capital.

Israel did not include east Jerusalem as part of its 10-month building freeze, though most plans there were put on hold in March, when the U.S. protested reports of a new housing project leaked during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden.

East Jerusalem was also captured by Israel in 1967.

While recognizing "the suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live" and the need for Israel to enjoy peace within internationally recognized borders, the document was much more expansive and detailed on the situation of Palestinians.

It said Palestinians "are suffering the consequences of the Israeli occupation: the lack of freedom of movement, the wall of separation and the military checkpoints, the political prisoners, the demolition of homes, the disturbance of socio-economic life and the thousands of refugees."

It urged Christians in the region not to sell their homes and properties. "It is a vital aspect of the lives of those who remain there and for those who one day will return there."

It condemned terrorism "from wherever it may proceed" as well as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and discrimination against Christians.

SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
Bishop Accountability Org

MESSIAH IN BOTH TESTAMENTS- FRED JOHN MELDAU-1967 CLASSIC

The guiding principle of Pope Gregory was, “Ignorance is the mother of piety.”

After you read about Pope ("Saint") Gregory the Great you'll understand why Rupert Murdoch was made a Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great.

"The guiding principle of Pope Gregory was, “Ignorance is the mother of piety.” According to this principle, Gregory burned the precious Palestine Library founded by Emperor Augustus, destroyed the greater part of the writings of Livy and forbade the study of the classics."

Read Article

My research

Then do your own research!

It’s Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS

(From the Oath Keepers Web site)

As the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS “Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism” along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select “law enforcement” officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.  What does the working group do?  Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources – police, social services, media, NGO’s, you name it – to fight “extremism.  So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists.  Now it is in your face and the mask is off.

When you read the below document, keep in mind the current ordeal of the Irish family where their newborn baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father’s “association with a militia group known as Oath Keepers.”. Pay attention to who sits on this panel (see pages 26-30), to who DOESN’T, how they plan on reaching DHS tentacles down into every level of society, and how they talk overtly about the need to utilize local SOCIAL WELFARE and MENTAL HEALTH agencies to counter “violent extremism.”. In other words, what is now being done to the Irish family will be done all over.

This is the overt politicization of DHS, to use it against political enemies.

I will post more on this later today.

Stewart Rhodes

Senate Report: Contractors Funded Afghan Warlords

Five Shocking Findings of the Afghan Contractor Probe

Republican candidate for Senate Ron Johnson Testified To Protect Catholic Church From Sex Abuse Lawsuits

As a member of the finance council for the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay until he resigned to run for Senate this year, Ron Johnson served alongside a bishop named Robert Morneau who, as a Church leader, had been made aware over two decades ago of the abusive tendencies of Rev. John Feeney.

Rev. Feeney was convicted in 2003, before Johnson joined the council, for sexually assaulting two brothers in the late 1970s. But according to documents obtained by the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the Church sought to cover up his crimes, which one reverend called "sexually very inappropriate."

Seven years later, Johnson testified before the Wisconsin State Senate against legislation to eliminate the statute of limitations for such crimes, making it easier for victims of sexual abuse to seek damages from the Church or any other culpable institution.

The testimony first arose in the context of the race in a June article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and has been dogging Johnson more or less ever since. His connection to Morneau raises questions about how familiar Johnson (who is not a Catholic) was with the diocese's hidden scandals. Those questions couldn't come at a worse time for the GOP hopeful, who leads Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in the polls ahead of the November election.

TPM contacted numerous attorneys, advocates, and other members of the finance council of the Diocese of Green Bay to explain the finance council's role at the church, and the information it was privy to with respect to sexually abusive clergy. What we learned suggests that it's very difficult to separate Johnson's role as finance committee member from his role as legislative witness seeking to protect the Church from future lawsuits, when he told the panel, "I urge you to defeat this legislation."

Johnson insisted at the time that he testified as an active member of the business and non-profit community -- not specifically, and most pressingly, as a representative of the Catholic Church. But the road he took to testifying at the Madison statehouse in January of this year belies that contention.

Deacon Tim Reilly, Director of Administration for the Diocese of Green Bay told TPM that the Church played a significant role in getting Johnson to the state capital. According to Reilly, the Church didn't support the legislation and wanted to raise public awareness of its objections. So the diocese arranged for a meeting with Randy Hopper, the state senator in the Oshkosh area who sits on the panel that was deciding whether this legislation would go to the floor for a vote. Some 20 people met at St. Rafael's Parish in Oshkosh, several of whom spoke -- including Johnson. His arguments were among the most articulate and persuasive to the group, so Hopper asked him to go to Madison and testify -- the sort of not-quite-lobbying that happens in Washington and in state capitals around the country all the time.

Reilly reiterated to TPM that Johnson was not speaking specifically on behalf of the church. "He was speaking on his own behalf, as a concerned citizen, that this would adversely affect the Catholic School System and the Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA and other non-profits without government protection."

That beggars belief, according to experts and clergymen.

"He can't be testifying just as a concerned citizen," says Father Tom Doyle, a priest who presciently warned the Catholic Church about the looming sex abuse scandal years ago. "If he was a member of the finance council of the diocese, the senator picked him out not because he was concerned about the Boys and Girls Club.... I don't know of any instance where a layperson, on his own, without any connection with the Church administration has come forward to testify."

Doyle admonished that, though many finance councils around the country are intimately familiar with diocesan secrets (both good and bad), they are in some instances left in the dark by their bishops. He has no direct knowledge of what the finance council knew in Johnson's case.

After learning of Johnson's testimony in news reports a former Johnson supporter named Todd Merryfield -- one of Feeney's victims -- appeared on MSNBC to announce that he'd renounced his support for the Tea Party-backed candidate.

For Merryfield and others who advocate on behalf of abuse victims, legislation extending the statute of limitations in child abuse cases was and remains a key legislative goal, and Johnson's successful attempt to kill it is a nearly unpardonable sin. But in addition to seeking penance from Johnson, and calling on him to press the Church to release information about priest abuse, they want to know what he knew when he testified in January.

"We don't know exactly what he knew," Merryfield told TPM in a phone interview. "It just seemed a little strange that he was in a position of knowledge being on the finance council, having to sign the checks to everyone being paid."

The issue has taken on greater salience as Johnson's lead over Feingold has grown. But for victims, the question of whether Johnson was acting as a dispassionate citizen and member of the business community, or as an agent of the Church, is the most crucial.

"These pedophiles that they have hidden away, they pay their room and board, living costs," Merryfield said, speculating that Johnson "has to know who they are because he has to write the checks to somebody."

According to Peter Isely, SNAP's Midwest Director, "It's something of a mystery what this finance council does," though, he says, it's one of the most important positions in the diocese.

Jim Stang, an attorney for official committees of abuse survivors in six Catholic affiliated bankruptcy cases, told TPM that these finance committees -- mandated at every diocese in the country -- are well-positioned to know about the skeletons in the Church's closets. When a case is settled, for instance, it would be in the financial interest of the Church, and therefore the council, to know of any other potential victims, and therefore lawsuits.

"It would certainly be in the area of finance committee's appropriate inquiry to ask," Stang said.

Ultimately, though, Stang said it should come as no surprise that Johnson's testimony so closely mirrored the Church's position.

"I think you'd have to live in some kind of plastic bubble to not make the association between statute of limitations reform and the financial impact on the diocese," Stang said. "It's certainly the argument the Church has been making for years."

According to the 2004 John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Diocese of Green Bay received 59 allegations of sexual abuse by 35 diocesan priests during the 52 year period of the inquiry, 1950-2002.

Furthermore, the diocese is currently involved in two lawsuits, which, according to Reilly, is just the sort of potential liability the Church would bring to the attention of the council. "I also would say we have two lawsuits going on and depending on how they're settled, depending on whether the judge rules in our favor and how the jury rules, this is the potential financial risk that might be out there in the future," Reilly said. "In the case of the two litigations that we're involved in right now, I feel very strongly that we are on the correct side of the truth, but I said to the council, I need to make everybody aware that there are two lawsuits coming on so it's not a surprise. Nobody likes surprises."

In the past several days, Johnson has claimed in statements to reporters in Wisconsin that he never argued the legislation should fail -- only that he cautioned against some of its provisions. "I sought to warn legislators of those consequences in order to correct legislative language so that any bills that passed would punish the perpetrators," he insisted. In fact he urged state senators to vote down the legislation, claiming that, among other things, it would benefit trial attorneys and do more harm than good to children left in the lurch when organizations get sued and go under.

Now, under attack, he is demanding full transparency from the Diocese of Green Bay.
"I call upon the Green Bay Diocese to provide the utmost transparency in order to answer any lingering questions or doubt among victims of child abuse and those who seek to prevent child abuse in the future," Johnson said.

The Johnson campaign did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

Article Source

When the world's on fire (don't you want God's bossom to be your pillow?)

Jesse Ventura was never a USN Seal?

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/jesseVenturanotaSeaI

Website: http://cursor.org/venturawatch/dangerous_game.htm

From September 11, 1969 to September 10, 1975 Jesse Ventura served in the USN attached to UDT 12, an underwater demolition team. UDT 12 existed at the same time the SEALS existed. The UDTs were later broken up and some of the frogmen as they were called got additional training and became SEALS, some became SDVT and others became NDU and Navy Salvage Divers; but that was in 1983, 8 and a half years after Jesse Ventura, (then Jim Janos) left the US Navy.

Because he CONSTANTLY claims to be a SEAL, a real SEAL Commander Bill Salisbury, a 16 year SEAL team veteran and San Diego attorney wrote an article for the San Diego Reader that basically called him a liar and a phony. Here's the original article:

http://tinyurl.com/yczf3cu

This got reporters asking questions that Ventura tried to brush off or stonewall, finally, on a Minnesota public radio interview on December 14, 1999 Governor Venturas spokesman confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the Navy SEALs and his stated that the "Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise".

http://tinyurl.com/3y49upa

But that didn't stop Jesse. Oh no. After going on and on about how he had "hunted men" in Vietnam when he was a SEAL a TV station got a hold of a copy of his dd-214 discharge papers and noticed that he didn't have a combat action ribbon which was awarded to "those involved in a firefight or who went on clandestine or special operations where the risk of enemy fire was great or expected". The transcript is here:

http://tinyurl.com/yaebr2q

FINALLY, in January 2002, Ventura ADMITTED to the Pioneer Press and the Minnesota Star Tribune that he did not see combat:

http://tinyurl.com/ydmwbjp

Now he is back to ranting about his non existent SEAL service like nothing ever happened. Why is this important? Because during the time Jesse Ventura was in UDT 12 SEAL team one lost 34 men to combat in Vietnam. UDT 12 lost 1 man to a training accident in the Philippines.

http://tinyurl.com/y9to2m4

Riggs Bank News

Law firm vice president sells Burleith 2BD Blockshopper Prior to that, he was the trust officer at Riggs Bank, NA He graduated from United States Military Academy in West Point. He earned his master's degree in ...

Blockshopper

Blogs

Anti-financial crimes business network - US Patent 7805369 Description For example, AmSouth Bank was fined $50 million for failure to file SARs as required by laws; Riggs Bank was fined $25 million for failure to file SARs; UBS was fined $100 million for failure to comply with the requirements set by the ... PatentStorm -> Patents -> Data... - http://www.patentstorm.us/rss/class/patents/rss-705.xml

Facts about Equatorial Guinea | Africannewslive By Newslive A 2004 US Senate investigation into the Washington-based Riggs Bank found that President Obiang's family had received huge payments from US oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Amerada Hess. Observers say the US finds it hard to ... Africannewslive - http://africannewslive.com/

Geoffrey Robertson vs Pope Benedict XVI

Geoffrey Robertson would like to see Pope Benedict XVI be made accountable for years of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.

The Australian-born QC's new book, The Case of the Pope, says the Pope is morally responsible for a crime against humanity.

click to listen to audio

"What we're dealing with is tens of thousands of rapes of children. When you investigate the particular areas in Ireland three judicial reports have said endemic in Catholic intuitions - wide spread and systematic.

"That happens to be the definition of a crime against humanity."

He believes the Vatican have caused the widespread nature of the abuse.

"They were moving paedophile priests from one country to another and covering up paedophilia in the church by a medieval process of canon law, where bishops don't hand over priests to the police to prosecute. They deal with them in private, where the punishment is to go and do penance."

Mr Robertson wants to see the system of canon law changed.

The QC refutes the claims from various publications and commentators that the numbers of priests sexually abusing children have been sensationalised.

"The Church itself accepts up to five per cent which is twenty thousand. A paedophile priest throughout their life will molest dozens of children. An Austrian Cardinal is said to have molested thousands of children in a sixty year life."

While Mr Robertson doesn't blame the Pope for any actual abuse personally.

"All I'm saying is that the Vatican should comply with the convention of the Rights of the Child, which every country except America has ratified.

"The Vatican must adopt a zero tolerance attitude towards the abuse of a child and a mandatory reporting policy, handing over evidence of abuse to police and a protection for whistle blowers."
He thinks the Pope will make these changes.

"He's come along way. In Easter he was passing this off as petty gossip. Last week in England he apologised for what he called 'the unspeakable crimes of my clergy'.

"I'm pushing at an open door."

article link: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/10/05/3030034.htm

'If you tell, you go to hell'

"As Pope Benedict continues his visit to Britain, Channel 4 News north of England Nick Martin meets three clerical sex abuse victims who tell him their harrowing stories." Read More

**Update** It seems that channel 4 News decided to take down this story. I wonder why.........

Here's another link to the story.

But if you click it you'll see that the story has been removed. The video was very important and damaging to the Vatican. That is why it was removed.

Here's the text of the article at least:

"As Pope Benedict continues his visit to Britain, Channel 4 News north of England Nick Martin meets three clerical sex abuse victims who tell him their harrowing stories. Therese Albrecht looks me straight in the eyes and says: “I planned the whole thing; I was going to buy a gun, go see the priest who abused me, shoot him in the head and then kill myself – that’s how bad it got.”
She did not, because she feared she would go to hell for killing the priest.
Ms Albrecht is a straight talker. A former New York cop, she was abused at the age of eight by her parish priest.



”The priest who abused me controlled me through fear,” she said. ”There was a rhyme: ‘If you tell, you go to hell.’ It worked. I didn’t tell. Not for a long time.” Life’s work to protect children I am spending two days with three women who have made it their life’s work to prod and pester the Vatican. They want the Pope to do more to protect children who come into contact with priests intent on abusing them. 

And they are not satisfied with the Pope’s expressions of regret on the first day of a four-day state visit to the UK. “We have heard the apologies, now we want action,” said Barbara Blaine, the president and founder of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). 

”I was abused by my priest from the age of 13. My family looked up to him, the whole community looked up to him. It was horrendous, embarrassing but I was just a child and I didn’t understand what was happening,” she said. The pair have travelled from the US to be in Edinburgh for the papal visit. With them is Barbara Dorris, a retired gym teacher who was raped at the age of six by her parish priest.

“The priest told my mother to put me in my best dress and send me to church to help out,” she said.

”My mother was so proud that I had been chosen. I was a special chosen one. She didn’t know that he was raping me.”

SNAP says the way the Catholic church is dealing with emerging cases of child abuse at the hands of priests is inadequate and it is looking to the Pope for action. 



The Catholic church says there has been radical changes to the way they deal with this issue and that priests found guilty of abusing children should never have access to youngsters again. But SNAP wants to see a register formed so that priests who they say have been “credibly accused” of child abuse could be named and shamed so that parents can protect their children."

Official PRIEST Trailer - In Theaters 5/13/2011

Judy Jones of SNAP @ 2010 Chicago Conference

Father Marcial Maciel, was my dad, and he sexually abused me, Raul Gonzalez claims in lawsuit

By Michael Sheridan
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, June 22nd 2010, 8:52 AM

Lepri/AP

Pope John Paul II is seen giving his blessing to Father Marcial Maciel in 2004. Maciel has been accused of sexually abusing children, including his own, in a lawsuit. He died in 2008.

Mone/AP

Raul Gonzalez

 

He was a celebrated priest, praised by Pope John Paul II.

But Father Marcial Maciel had secrets, which included illegitimate children and sexual abuse, according to a lawsuit filed in Connecticut on Monday.

Raul Gonzalez claims the Vatican protected the man he knew as his father for decades, chiefly because of his efforts with the highly profitable Legion of Christ.

"My dad told my mom that he was a CIA agent," Gonzalez told ABC News' "Nightline." "He always told my mom that he was a really busy man. That he was always flying on his trips because of the business of his company."

It wasn't until he saw Maciel on the cover of a magazine, dressed in priest garb, that he learned the truth.
In the lawsuit, Gonzalez claims he, and other children, were sexually abused by Father Maciel during his time as director of the Legionaries of Christ, a congregation he founded in 1941.

"He is one of the many, many kids, and others abused and deceived by Maciel," says Jeffrey Anderson, Gonzalez's lawyer.

Gonzalez alleges the abuse began when he was 7 years old during a trip to Colombia. He told "Nightline" that his half-brother, Omar, also was abused.

"He told me that his uncle sometimes made him masturbate him and, basically, the idea of my dad was to transmit that idea to me," said Gonzalez, according to ABC News.

Gonzalez described many different kinds of abuse he claims Maciel committed.

"He always told us we had to kiss him because that was how we would learn how to kiss a girl when we grew up," he said.

In the lawsuit, he alleges Father Maciel was protected by the church -- including Pope Paul II -- because of his efforts in raising money, as well as providing gifts and benefits to Vatican officials.

"My dad told my mom that when John Paul II dies, he was going to be in trouble," Gonzalez said.
After the death of Pope Paul II, Maciel was stripped of his authority and the Legion of Christ was taken over by the Vatican. Father Maciel was still a priest when he died in 2008.

The Vatican and the Legion of Christ did not comment on the ABC News report. Gonzalez says he has met with officials several times regarding a settlement, and has demanded $26 million.

msheridan@nydailynews.com; or follow him at Twitter.com/NYDNSheridan


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_father_marcial_maciel_my_dad_sexually_abused_me_raul_gonzalez_claims_in_lawsuit.html#ixzz0rcwg0Nr2

Pope made Hitlers vice-chancellor Knight of Malta

Pope made Hitlers vice-chancellor Knight of Malta

Franz von Papen brought Hitler to power in 1933. In 1959 Von Papen was made a «Knight of Malta» and awarded the Grand Cross by the Pope in Rome.

Franz von Papen as a prisoner of war in 1945, next to an American military police

Nazi-Germany would not have been the same without Franz Joseph Hermann Michael Maria von Papen zu Köningen. He was the head of the Catholic Centre Party, that merged with the Nazi party after Hitler came to power in Germany.
In 1932 Von Papen was made Chancellor of Germany. And when Nazi-leader Adolf Hitler took over as the leader of Germany in 1933, Hitler made Von Papen the Vice-Chancellor.

Franz von Papen.

On 8 April 1933, Von Papen travelled to the Vatican to offer a «Reichskonkordat» that defined the German state’s relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. Von Papen secured the Vatican religious freedom in Nazi-Germany.
Papen and his allies were quickly marginalized by Hitler and he left the government after the Night of the Long Knives on 2 July 1934. Some of Von Papens confidants were then purged by the Nazis.
Von Papen was sent to Wiena as German ambassador. Even though he was dismissed from his mission in Austria on 4 February 1938, a month before the Anschluss. But Papen was not removed because He has deserted Hitler.
From 1939 to 1944 Von Papen served the Nazi-government as Ambassador to Turkey.
In August 1944, Papen had his last meeting with Hitler after arriving back in Germany from Turkey. Here, Hitler awarded Papen the Knight’s Cross of the Military Merit Order.
Papen was one of the defendants at the main Nuremberg War Crimes Trial. The court acquitted him, stating that he had, in the court’s view, committed a number of “political immoralities,” but that these actions were not punishable under the “conspiracy to commit crimes against peace” charged in Papen’s indictment.

Franz von Papen as a Nazi

Von Papen was later sentenced to eight years in prison by a West German denazification court, but was released on appeal in 1949.
Franz Von Papen was made a Papal Chamberlain by Pope Pius XI. But when this pope died in 1939, war time Pope Pius XII did not renew his honorary title.
But Pope John XXIII restored Von Papen`s title of Papal Chamberlain on 24 July 1959. Papen was also made a «Knight of Malta», and was awarded the Grand Cross of the Pontifical Order of Pius IX.
Why did the Roman Catholic Church honor Hitlers vice-chancellor, who had been rewarded by Hitler in 1944, at the hight of the Holocaust?
One answer has to be found in the merits of Franz Von Papen before World War II.
Papen was expelled from the United States during World War I for complicity in the planning of sabotage such as blowing up U.S. railroad lines. On 28 December 1915, he was declared persona non grata by the U.S. after his exposure and recalled to Germany.

Franz von Papen was awarded the grand cross by the Pope in 1959.

In April 1916, a United States federal grand jury issued an indictment against Papen for a plot to blow up Canada’s Welland Canal, which connects Lake Ontario to Lake Erie. But Papen was then safely on German soil. He remained under indictment until he became Chancellor of Germany in 1932, at which time the charges were dropped.
Later in World War I, Papen served as an officer first on the Western Front. From 1917 he as an officer on the General Staff in the Middle East and a major in the Ottoman army in Palestine.
Than, who was Franz Von Papen?
Like Tony Blair, He was a committed «papist». He was linked to the Papal effort to make The United State of America one of the Papal states under the Vatican seat of power.
He even served as a officer in the Ottoman Army in «Palestine», who tried its best to avoid Jerusalem being liberated by British forces. There were worse things that could happen to Jerusalem, than being under Muslim control. The Catholic faithful wanted to avoid a Protestant Christian take-over, followed by a Jewish home coming.
Today a former nominal protestant turned faithful papal soldier is trying to complete the task given to Franz von Papen. His name is Tony Blair. The former Prime Minister of Anglican United Kingdom has been given the Papal task to end the Zionist control over the «Holy city».
Franz Von Papen was not only a Nazi-collaborator. He had always been a faithful papist and a freemason. Thats why the Pope of Rome restored him in 1959.

20. Juli 1933. Franz von Papen signs the deal between Nazi-Germany and the Vatican

Franz von Papen with Hitler and Josef Goebbels.

After World War II, Franz von Papen was made a papal knight by the Pope

Freemasons on the march, the order of the Knights of Malta with Franz von Papen.

Papal soldier Franz von Papen with his Vatican order after World War II

After the war, Franz von Papen on the back of a horse. A free man, honored by the Roman Catholic Pope of Rome.

Read more about the Knights of Malta: Click here

Hitchens: Kagan Should be Grilled Over Recent Vatican Brief

By Ashby Jones

Last week, we wrote an article for the WSJ on the U.S. government’s decision to side with the Vatican in a high-profile case involving alleged sexual abuse against a former priest. Click here for the story; here for the LB post on the story.
The solicitor general’s office urged the Supreme Court to set aside a federal appellate court ruling in a case that had allowed the Oregon suit to go forward against the Vatican. Specifically, the SG’s office argued in its brief that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law governing when U.S. courts can hear cases against other countries.
Writing for Slate, noted author — and no friend to organized religion — Christopher Hitchens recently weighed in on the brief which, Hitchens notes, came out of Elena Kagan’s office, though it wasn’t signed by her specifically. (Neal Katyal, the Acting SG, was the top name on the brief.)
Hitchens, not surprisingly, isn’t a fan of the Obama administration’s position in the case, and thinks that those “scrutinizing the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court might want to pay some attention to the decision of her office,” a decision Hitchens characterizes as taking “the side of the Vatican in the continuing scandal of child rape and the associated scandal of a coordinated obstruction of justice.”
Continues Hitchens, on the decision to invoke the Vatican’s sovereignty as a justification for judicial immunity:

There are a number of fascinating ramifications of this opinion. It is not usually considered polite to mention that the majority of Supreme Court justices are practicing Roman Catholics. . . . We will soon have a Supreme Court that contains no Protestants and no secularists and which is being asked to rule on a matter central to the religious beliefs of a majority of its members, who are bound to regard the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger as the vicar of Christ on earth. If they now take refuge in the lesser claim that he is the bureaucratic head of a foreign government, will that serve to assuage their consciences?

Hitchens’ piece ends with this flourish:

It will be a disgrace if the Supreme Court overrules the sane and legal finding of the 9th Circuit. . . . [A]t last the majesty of American law is being deployed in this matter—but on the side of an institution that has irreparably stained itself with crime. Kagan and her colleagues should be made to feel the shame of this, as should the president, who talks so glibly about human rights and equality before the law.

The Vatican, through its lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, has argued that the Vatican doesn’t employ priests or exercise the requisite control over them to justify the U.S. courts exercising jurisdiction over the Vatican, let alone establishing liability. In regard to the Oregon case, Lena noted that the plaintiff has not provided evidence that the Vatican moved the priest in question around, or had control over the priest.
Specifically, the solicitor general’s office argued in its brief that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law governing when U.S. courts can hear cases against other countries.
LBers, any thoughts?

Vatican Bank Under Scrutiny

Vatican bank under scrutiny VATICAN CITY - ITALIAN prosecutors are investigating the Vatican bank on suspicion of involvement in money laundering, La Repubblica daily reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper said the Institute of Religious Works (IOR) and 10 Italian banks, including major institutions such as Intesa San Saolo and Unicredit, were the target of the investigation.

'The hypothesis of the investigators is that subjects with their fiscal residence in Italy are using the IOR as a 'screen' to hide different dealings, such as fraud or tax evasion,' the paper said.

The IOR manages bank accounts for religious orders and Catholic associations and benefits from Vatican offshore status.

Investigators have uncovered transactions of around 180 million euros (S$310 million) over a two-year period in one of the accounts held at the IOR.

In September 2009 the IOR nominated a new chief executive, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Spanish banking giant Santander's representative in Italy. US archbishop Paul Marcinkus headed up the bank in 1971-1989 during which time it was caught up in scandals including the collapse of the private Italian bank, Banco Ambrosiano in 1982 amid accusations of links to the mafia and political terrorism. -- AFP

Keith Green Catholic Chronicles

Red Mass Info Red Mass Pics Jesuit Nazis Jesuit Arabs Jesuit Holocaust Jesuit Assassins Picture Positive Jesuit Links Waco Truth Testimony

Email Me**Home

Videos Audios Alberto Rivera Keith Green 9/11 Videos Myspace Riggs Bank Bush Family Inquisitions NWO

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.spirituallysmart.com

A Conversation with Last Days Ministries (Keith Green's Ministry) about why they stopped publishing the "Catholic Chronicles". Keith Green - Your Love Broke Through Keith Green "Asleep in the Light" 11 year old Keith Green on “I've Got A Secret!” Testimony of Ex-CIA, High Satanic Priestess who said the CIA Assassinated Keith. The CIA is totally controlled by the Jesuits.

Link to the Website where I found this work

I want to put the "Conclusion" of this work first being that it is usually edited out. This will show how really dangerous Keith Green was to Rome.

"Conclusion"
It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines of mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered "Christian". The fear, anguish, and religious bondage that such a system of "reward and punishment" creates, has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.

To merely call such a system "a cult", would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many an unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Church is not a cult. It's an empire!

With its own ruler, its own laws, and its own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with its eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths "separated brethren" (The term used by Vatican II to describe the members of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant churches.) and has as its goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under its flag.

I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they've heard about recent stirrings among the Catholics in the "charismatic renewal". Many evangelicals (especially Charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending "charismatic masses".

Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quieted by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as "the antichrist" (Although the following people unhesitatingly did: Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards.) or the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon". Now Protestants unwittingly believe that "our differences are not so great". Ah, that is just what She needs us to think!

I've never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked, gotten away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!

---

Part 1. The Holy Eucharist - Eating the Flesh of Deity.

One might wonder why, in a scriptural look at the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject - The Roman Interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles." Most Protestants (1) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation - such as the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory and prayers for the dead, or the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics" and such like that.

But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "Mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

The Eucharist

The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving." In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer," although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist."

Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. If you've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends - at the bread and the wine!

Transubstantiation

That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement . . . and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject, and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up, it was such a natural and normal part of religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses them during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mind-boggling.

Exclusive Authority

For example, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that since their priests are the only ones who have the authority from God (2) to pronounce the blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus "physically resides" even now! Let me quote a letter written to one of the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the ONLY church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist - He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host in Holy Communion."

If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really believe or teach this, I beg you to read on. For not only is this the official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree (called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

The Council of Trent

When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered together her theologians who worked for three decades on the preparation of a statement of faith concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine.

As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:

CANON I - "If anyone shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure - let him be accursed!"

CANON II - "If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ - let him be accursed!"

CANON VI - "If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of Latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, not to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the Holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolators, - let him be accursed!"

The Worship Of The Host

"Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image (4)...Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" The Second Commandment (Ex.20:4-5)

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23)

In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is not just an "ancient custom," it is thoroughly practiced today in many Masses. After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into the Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder called a monstrance. And before this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called genuflecting) the little wafer as God! Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship - to this piece of bread!

The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems. For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ?" Do they change back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh! And don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript in a museum case somewhere - it still is completely adhered to and passionately practiced. As an example, here is a passage from an official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:

"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore, some hosts are usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of `making visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks, their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness: in a word, to make Him the center around which they live their daily lives."

That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of your daily life!

When Did This Teaching Begin?

The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.) by Pope Innocent III.

Church historians tell us that when this doctrine first began to be taught, the priests took great care that no crumb should fall - lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!

How Rome Views the Bible

Before we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the Scriptures. According to unquestionable decree, they hold that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible." This is not just a theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same Council of Trent in 1546! And again, this view is completely held by the Church today:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture...and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:" "...usually, the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." (10)

Anyone can see how such a mode of interpretation can be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the Scriptures - each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the Bible!

Catholic Proof-Texts Explained

With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus Himself taught transubstantiation.

John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage (verses 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but spiritual food and drink.

Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger." Now, Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation, And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever - therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28; Jn. 4:31-34.)

We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14.) No one can say that Jesus was here establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body...this is My blood." (See also Matt. 4:4.)

Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these tow verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood. The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread - His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!

Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have figurative language. Jesus did not say TOUTO GIGNETAI ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but TOUTO ESTI ("this is," i.e., "signifies," "represents" or "stands for"). (11) It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood."

One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (2 Sam. 23:17)

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door," "the Vine," "the Light," "the Root," "the Rock," "the Bright and Morning Star," as well as "the Bread." The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)

True Pagan Origins

Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." (12) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. (13) In Egypt, priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris. (14) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharist rites. (15)

The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries, "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." (16)

So Why Do They Teach It?

Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked, "Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine - why do they think that Jesus wants them to physically eat Him?" That is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is a sad one. As I said before, the implications and practical conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially worse than the doctrine itself - and like a great web spun by an industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel.

In Catholic Chronicle II we will look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass."

Footnotes:
1] - Today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.
2] - Passed down through "Apostolic Succession" from Peter the apostle-the supposed "first pope."
3] - The "wafer."
4] - NASB reads, "You shall not make for yourself an idol."
5] - This act is called "genuflecting."
6] - "The Spirit of Jesus" Catholic Home Study Instruction Course. Book #3, p.92.
7] - A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible.
8] - The Other Side of Rome, p.21.
9] - By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.
10] - "The Spirit of Jesus," pp.94-95.
11] - If I held up a picture of my son and said, "This is my son," I am certainly not saying that the actual picture is literally my son.
12] - The Story of Civilization, p.741.
13] - Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aurelius, by Dill.
14] - An ancient Egyptian god of the lower world and judge of the dead - Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.76.
15] - Ibid.
16] - Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

The Sacrafice of the Mass - What Does it Mean?

In Chronicle I, we thoroughly examined the doctrine of transubstantiation - its history, practice, and real meaning. But we have waited for this second article to answer the question: WHY? Why must there be present in the Mass the literal body and blood of Jesus? What purpose does it serve?

The answer is found in the startling words: "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice of the cross, for there is the same priest, the same victim, and the same offering." (1)

And in the words of Pope Pius IV....

"I profess likewise that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory (2) sacrifice for the living and the dead." (From the fifth article of the creed of Pope Pius IV.)

That is the incredible truth! The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that in every Mass, in every church, throughout the world (estimated at up to 200,000 Masses a day) that Jesus Christ is being offered up again, physically, as a sacrifice for sin (benefiting not only those alive, but the dead (3) as well!) Every Roman Mass is a re-creation of Jesus' death for the sins of the world. NOT A SYMBOLIC RE-CREATION - but a literal, actual offering of the flesh and blood of the Lord to make daily atonement for all the sins that have been daily committed since Jesus was crucified almost 2,000 years ago. (4)

That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender to the Father in death." (5)

"He offers Himself continually to the Father, in the same eternal act of offering that began on the cross and will NEVER CEASE." (6)

"The Mass is identical to Calvary - it is a sacrifice for sin - it must be perpetuated to take away sin." (7)

The catechism of the Council of Trent required all pastors to explain that not only did the elements of the Mass contain flesh, bones and nerves as a part of Christ, "But also a WHOLE CHRIST." (8) Thus it is referred to as "the sacrifice of the Mass" and as "a RENEWAL of the sacrifice of the cross." (9)

The Council Of Trent On "The Sacrifice Of The Mass"

As we shared in Chronicle I, the Council of Trent was called to clarify and standardize Catholic doctrine in response to the challenges of the Reformation. The canons on this subject (passed in Session XXII. Cap II.) are as follows:

1. "If anyone shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema." (10)

2. "If anyone shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

3. "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead fro sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."

4. "If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass - let him be accursed."

But Is This The Belief Of Rome Today?

If any be in doubt as to the modern Roman position, we shall quote the recent (1963-1965) Second Vatican Council:

"At the Last Supper...our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross..." p. 154, THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. (11) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host," which is the Latin word HOSTIA which literally means "VICTIM." (12)

But Why "The Sacrifice" Of The Mass?

We will now quote the church's own contemporary literature to fully answer this question (taken from the book, THIS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, Imprimatur: (13)  Most Reverend John F. Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford:

"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE PERPETUATION OF THAT SACRIFICE THAT THIS UNION MAY BE MAINTAINED.

"What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the Cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice.

The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass." (14)

But Jesus Said "It Is Finished!"

Every true believer loves the sound of these words: "It is finished!" (John 19:30). For it is the wonderful exclamation that the Lord's suffering was finally over - He had fulfilled His mission! Jesus had lived a Life of Sorrow, bearing the burden of a world gone mad. He had been rejected by everyone, even His closest friends. He had lived a perfect life before men and God, and His reward on earth was to be laughed at, spat upon, beaten beyond recognition, and finally nailed to a cross. But He had submitted willingly, because it was the will of His Father to offer Him as the satisfaction of the penalty for all the sin in the world - past, present and future!

But here, in the words of a Roman Catholic priest, is the "true meaning" of the words "it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law." (15) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever "perpetually"dying for sin.

Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic story - Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only look to the Scriptures to see the truth.

Back To The Book

The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the "once for all" sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ's sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth explicitly in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10:

"Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: For this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27). "...by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (9:12). "Nor yet that He should offer Himself often..but now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself..so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (9:25-28). "...we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for the sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God...for by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (10:10-14).

Notice that throughout these verses occurs the statement "once for all" which shows how perfect, complete and final Jesus' sacrifice was! His work on the cross constituted one historic event which need never be repeated and which in fact cannot be repeated. As Paul say, "Christ, being raised from the dead dieth no more" (Romans 6:9). Any pretense of a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, it is blasphemy and true fulfillment of the Scripture, "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." (Heb. 6:6).

Jesus - The Only Priest

Jesus not only became the perfect sacrifice for sin, but after being accepted by God as having totally fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant, He became "the mediator of a better covenant" (Heb.8:6). That means that Jesus is the high priest of every true believer! "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ" (ITim.2:5).

The Bible teaches that the priesthood of Jesus Christ is unique: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (17) "...because He abides forever (He) holds His priesthood permanently" This means that it cannot be transferred to another! (Heb.7:17,24).

But Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostles were ordained by Jesus Himself (at the Last Supper) to perpetuate the coming sacrifice He would make on the cross. And that this ordination has been handed down through the centuries to the current generation of priests. Therefore, Rome teaches that her priests actually operate and discharge the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and that they are called "other Christs" (alter Christus). (16)

This explains the great adulation and honor heaped upon the Roman priest. The French Catholic Saint J.M.B. Vianney said that "Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is no religion...without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us... see the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater feat than the creation of a world." He also said, "If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I would salute the priest before saluting the angel. The angel is a friend of God, but the priest holds the place of God...nest to God Himself, the priest is everything!" What humiliation for Jesus Christ, the One who has been given a name "above all other names!"

But Isn't Rome Changing?

Today, many are expressing hope that Rome is turning toward scriptural Christianity. They point to the many reforms of Vatican II (17) and also to the ever-widening charismatic renewal. True, these things appear to be a positive sign of change, and many are thrilled by them, but most fail to realize that these changes are only superficial. For Rome could never reject the sacrifice of the Mass - just streamline it enough to keep the truth of its meaning hidden. Pope John XXIII made it clear that His Church is bound "to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the act of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council..." (18)

It is clear that the whole of Roman teaching and belief is founded on this premise of the continual sacrifice of Christ for sin: Again, Catholic writings declare:

"It should be easy to see why the Mass holds such an important place in the Church's life. The Mass is the very essence of the Church. Within it the Church's life, and the Church's very existence is centered. If there were no Mass, there could be no Catholic Church. The Mass is our act of worship, an act which we know to be really worthy of God, because it is the sacrifice of God's own Son.

"What the sacrifices of the old law were unable to accomplish - the Mass performs: Perfect atonement is made for sin.

"The souls of men yet unborn, together with those now living and those who have come into existence since Christ's sacrifice, all have need of the salvation which Christ has won for us. It is through the Mass as well as through the other sacraments that the effects of Christ's salvation are applied to the souls of men." (19)

It is made thoroughly clear that Rome will forever put its faith in the Mass for the eternal forgiveness of sins. To remove this belief from her system of theology, would be like knocking our the pillars of a great edifice - the whole building would come tumbling down!

Paul's Extreme Warning

As I sat stunned, reading all the "Let them be accursed" threats of the Council of Trent, I could not help but think how their curses would only fall back on their own heads - for the words of our brother Paul call out across the centuries:

"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8).

Not only does Paul warn that an authentic angel from heaven should not be heeded while preaching "different doctrine," but he gives the ultimate warning -"...even though we!" Paul strictly warned the Galatians, not even to listen to him - the chief apostle and master of true doctrine - if he should reverse himself on any of the fundamental teachings of the gospel. How much more then, should we reject the appalling traditions and practices of a system that is not only unbiblical, but is actually steeped in mysticism, bordering dangerously on the occult!

Conclusion

As far as I can see from the Bible, a person is only in danger of being grouped with "false brethren" by tampering with three very basic issues of biblical truth. (20)

1) Who Jesus is - Son of God, God the Son, Creator of the universe.

2) What He came to do - to die once for all, for the sins of mankind, then raise from the dead as the eternal high priest of all true believers.

3) How a person directly benefits from Christ's death for sin - he is accounted as righteous through a total faith and rest in the finished work of Christ, and becomes the possessor of God's free gift - eternal life (salvation).

The Roman Catholic Church has been considered a true Christian faith, mainly because it is generally known that their theology is quite orthodox on point #1. But as we have pointed out in these two chronicles, they are perilously shaky on the atonement - Christ's substitutionary death for sinners - #2. But if there is any doubt left at all, as to whether or not the Roman Church is authentically and biblically Christian, there is a complete and thorough study of the Roman view on how one obtains salvation in our third installment of The Catholic Chronicles - "Salvation According To Rome."

Footnotes:
1] The Roman Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, by Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D.
2] Propitiatory - conciliatory, to soothe the anger of, to win or regain the goodwill of, to appease, placate or make friendly, to reconcile - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.
3] "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb.9:27).
4] The Catholic Home Instruction Book #3, p.90.
5] the Spirit of Jesus pp.89-90, Imprimatur: John Joseph CardinalCarberry, Archbishop of St.Louis.
6] Sons of God in Christ Book 4, p.117.
7] For Them Also, pp.289-299.
8] Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol.2, p.77.
9] "A Catholic Word List" p.45.
10] Anathema - The strongest denunciaiton of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death." A thing or person accursed or damned - Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.
11] "The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.
12] Webster's New World Dictionary.
13] Imprimatur - Sanction or approval. Specifically, permission to print or publish a book or article containing nothing contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - Webster's New World Dictionary.
14] pp.20-24
15] The Sacrifice of Christ by Richard W.Grace.
16]  In Latin.
17] i.e., Such as Masses performed in the common language rather than exclusively in Latin, the relaxation of taboos such as eating meat on Friday, etc.
18] The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot,S.J.
20] This Is The Catholic Church pp.24-25.
21] These are greatly condensed for this example.

Part 3. Salvation According to Rome.

"...the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord!"- Rom. 6:23

How blessed it is to know Jesus! His love, His mercy, His righteousness, His forgiveness! He has promised to "cast all our sins into the depths of the sea" (Mic. 7:19) and to separate us from our sins "as far as the east is from the west!" (Ps. 103:12).This is the good news! (That's the literal meaning of the word "gospel" - good news!) That is what the true church of our God has the privilege of proclaiming..."liberty to the captives!!" (Lk. 4:18).

The reason I begin this article on the Roman Catholic view of salvation with such rejoicing in my Saviour, is because I have just finished reading a mountain of official (Roman) church literature on the subject, and I can honestly say, I have never had such joy in my heart of hearts about the finished work of Christ. As I scoured each page and read of penance, confession, venial and mortal sins, indulgences, purgatory, etc., I then had the infinite pleasure of searching the Scriptures to see what they had to say on these fundamental Catholic doctrines.

Oh what relief my soul found in the Scriptures! What holy joy! What clarity of light I saw, as the simple brilliance of God's mercy shown into my mind. If there is anything more beautiful than God's love and patience with man, it has never been revealed to mortals!

All this to say that I am bogged down with the information I have accumulated, and I will probably have to cover it all in this, Chronicle III, briefly touching on each subject, while always coming back to the main question: "According to Rome, how can a man or woman be saved from the consequences of his sinful nature and actions, and how can they gain assurance that they are in a right standing before God?"

The Catholic Teaching On Sin

Before we can understand what Catholics are taught about salvation, we must first see what they are taught they need to be saved from. In Matt. 1, the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream about his bethrothed, Mary, saying "she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (vs. 21).

Today, many evangelicals toss around the term "saved" without much thought. "When did you get saved?" someone might ask. It's almost like a title, or a badge that a person wears to prove that he's become part of the club - the "saved" club. Others are under the impression that when a person talks of being "saved", they are talking about being saved from many different things - sickness, death, the devil, hell, etc. But when the angel of the Lord used that precious word to prophesy that Jesus would fulfill all the predictions of the prophets, he made very clear what Jesus was coming to save His people from...their sins!

In official Roman Catholic theology, this too is the main thing that people are taught they need to be saved from - their sins. But the only thing that Catholic and evangelical teachings have in common on the subject of sin...is the spelling! For when a Catholic talks about his "sins", you must find out first if he is talking about "mortal" sins, or "venial" sins. And then you must ask him "how do you get rid of them?" The answer given will likely confound a non-Catholic. For words like "faith", "repentance", even "Jesus" will usually be missing in the answer. Instead, a whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined, and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be canceled out.

Mortal and Venial Sins

The first of these unfamiliar words are the names of the two groups Rome has separated all sins into. Now if you're a Catholic, you might be wondering why I'm making such a big deal - for the dividing of sins into two distinct categories (each with their own set of consequences and remedies) has been part of Catholic doctrine for a long, long time.

According to Rome's definition, mortal sin is described as "any great offense against the law of God" and is so named because "it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment." Venial (1) sins, on the other hand, are "small and pardonable offenses against God, and our neighbor." Unlike mortal sins, benial sins are not thought to damn a soul to hell, but with the committing of each venial sin, a person increase his need for a longer stay in the purifying fires of a place called "purgatory." (Look that word up in your Bible dictionary - you'll find it right next to "venial"!)

Now, there is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial, but they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. The method of classification is purely arbitrary. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another.

According to Rome, the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine.  He should then be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloging those sins which are mortal as distinguished from those which are venial. However, there are some definites in the "mortal" category: blatantly breaking one of the ten commandments, practically all sexual offenses (whether in word, thought or deed) and a long list of transgressions which have changed throughout the centuries.

For instance, until Vatican II  it was a mortal sin to attend a Protestant church, to own or read a Protestant Bible, or to eat meat on Friday! Oh, and it's still a mortal sin to "miss Mass on Sunday morning (2) without a good excuse" (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal sin!) Venial sins include things like thinking bad thoughts, having wrong motives, losing your temper, etc. - things that do not necessarily "lead into actual sin" but still, nevertheless, are sins that need to be eradicated in some way.

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible makes no distinction between mortal and venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! It is true that some sin are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). And Ezekial says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (18:4).

James says that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for, shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canyon below.

We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying "these sins are really bad! But those? Well...you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much." Speaking of "getting away" with something, let's get right down to how Rome teaches you can "get rid of" your sins.

Confession

The Catholic system starts to get real complicated when we begin to look at the ways one can erase both their mortal and venial sins. "Two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal (in hell forever), and temporal (in purgatory). Eternal punishment is canceled by either baptism (3) or confession to a priest." (4)

The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as follows: "Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorized priest for the purpose of attaining forgiveness." The important words here are "authorized priest." And to be genuine, a confession must be heard, judged, and followed by obedience to the authorized priest as he assigns a penance, such as good works, prayers, fastings, abstinence form certain pleasures, et. A penance may be defined as "a punishment undergone in token of repentance for sin, as assigned by the priest" - usually a very light penalty.

The New York Catechism says, "I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give me absolution. (5) A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession."

The Priest's Role

Canon law 888 says: "The priest has to remember that in hearing confession he is a judge." And the book, Instructions for Non-Catholics (6) says: "A priest does not have to ask God to forgive your sins. The priest himself has the power to do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself." (7)

The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins which save the penitent form going to hell, but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins, and so the penitent must atone for them by performance of good works which he prescribes. The penitent may be, and usually is, interrogated by the priest so that he or she may make a full and proper confession. Stress is placed on the fact that any sin not confessed is not forgiven, any mortal sin not confessed in detail is not forgiven, and that the omission of even one sin (mortal) may invalidate the whole confession. Every loyal Roman Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to go to confession at least once a year, although monthly confession is said to be more satisfactory. But even after a penitent has received pardon, a large, but unknown amount of punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory." (8) The doctrine of purgatory rests on the assumption that, while God forgives sin, His justice nevertheless demands that the sinner must suffer the full punishment due to him for his sin before he will be allowed to enter heaven.

Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be canceled by good works, prayers, extreme unction. (9) etc., but the terms are quite elastic and permit considerable leeway on the part of the priest. It is generally advised that it is safer to confess supposed venial sins also since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism says: "When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution. (10) What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?

As an example, a minister friend of mine who was brought up in the Catholic Church, tells the story of how his older brother went to confession every single week and confessed the same sin to the same priest and was given the same penance in order to receive absolution. This went on week after week, year after year. One day, while on a trip from home, he decided that he would not break his pattern of going to weekly confession, so he went to another Catholic Church in the city he was visiting. He went into the confession box and confessed the same sin to a different priest. He began with "forgive me Father for I have sinned," and then began confessing the sin once again, but this time he was shocked when the priest said: "But my son, that's not a sin!" My friend's brother got up, and hurried out the door, and from that day on he has never stepped foot in any church again.

Historical Development

We search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of "auricular confession." (11) It is equally impossible to find any authorization or general practice of it during the first 1000 years of the Christian era. Not a word is found in the writings of the early church fathers about confessing sins to a priest or to anyone except God alone. Auricular confession is not mentioned once in the writings of Augustine, Origen, Nestorius, Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostem, or Athanasius - all of these and many others apparently lived and died without ever thinking of going to confession. No one other than God was thought to be worthy to hear confessions or to grant forgiveness.

Confession was first introduced into the church on a voluntary basis in the fifth century by the authority of Leo the Great. But it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Pope Innocent III that private auricular confession was make compulsory and all Roman Catholic people were required to confess and to seek absolution from a priest at least once a year. If they did not obey this command, they were pronounced guilty of mortal sin and damned for eternity to hell. (12)

Can A Priest Forgive Sins?

The Scriptures teach that "only God can forgive sins" (Mark 2:7). "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6). Dr. Zachello tells of his experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman Church, in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness." (13)

In fact, the only word in the Bible about confessing sins to anyone other than God, is found in James: "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed" (5:16).

Personal Comment: Keith Green was the biggest name in Christian music and at the height of his ministry his plane went down over his property in 1982. At the time of his death he was issuing "The Catholic Chronicles" Think about the damage this would do to a post-Vatican II council Catholic Church who were behind and pushing the ecumenical movement.

I believe the Vatican had him murdered through their CIA. Just like they have done with so many truth-sayers before him.

The Vatican is described perfectly by the Lord Himself here,

“And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” Revelation 18:2